đŸ”Ŧ Chimeric Detective Report

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly

28
Contigs Analyzed
7
Contigs Split
21
Contigs Preserved
0.76
Mean Confidence

📊 Summary Visualizations

Chimera Type Distribution

Confidence Score Distributions

Decision Summary

Evidence Types Overview

🔍 Detailed Analysis Results

Contig ID Chimera Type Confidence Decision Breakpoint Evidence Types Explanation
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 334 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 237 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 237, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3992 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,992, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_006 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 5164 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,164, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 3125 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,125, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1495 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,495, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 356 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 379 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 379, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 367 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 870 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 870, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 6145 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,145, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2269 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,269, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3229 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,229, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 785 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 785, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3070 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,070, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1501 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,501, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 167 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1910 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 910 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 910, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1812 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,812, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1086 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 972 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 972, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 702 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 702, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 241 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 241, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_004 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7473 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,473, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_009 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 4009 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,009, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 375 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 375, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 424 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 424, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3412 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,412, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1291 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,291, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 815 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 815, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 6741 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 7395 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,395, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4971 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,971, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1505 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,505, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1368 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,368, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1655 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,655, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 970 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 970, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 506 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 506, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 583 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 4831 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,831, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 291 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 291, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7458 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,458, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1714 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,714, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1350 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,350, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 522 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 522, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 889 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 889, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1692 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,692, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1278 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,278, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 250 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 169 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 169, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1110 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,110, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1275 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,275, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5044 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,044, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5316 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,316, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 202 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 202, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 6329 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,329, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2667 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 786 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 786, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 420 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 929 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 929, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_018 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 385 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 385, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2258 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,258, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 215 coverage_discontinuity, gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 215, there is a 2.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.09) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.90.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1613 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,613, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1449 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,449, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 167 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.06) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3742 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,742, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1326 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,326, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1265 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,265, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_010 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7018 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,018, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 6402 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,402, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1985 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,985, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2873 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,873, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2739 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1492 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1820 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,820, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1722 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,722, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_001 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7276 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,276, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4334 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,334, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5408 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,408, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1513 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,513, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2776 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,776, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1516 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 444 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 444, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 269 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 269, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1763 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,763, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1062 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,062, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2318 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,318, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 252 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 252, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 996 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 736 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_016 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 233 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 233, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1301 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,301, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3336 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,336, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1159 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,159, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 163 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 163, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 309 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 309, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 913 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 913, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_004 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 356 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 388 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 388, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2766 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,766, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2858 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 708 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 708, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1782 gc_content_shift, kmer_composition_change
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,782, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.

📈 Individual Contig Details

Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:

â„šī¸ Methodology & Interpretation

Detection Methods

Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:

  • Coverage Discontinuities: Sharp changes in read coverage depth
  • Sequence Composition: Changes in GC content and k-mer frequencies
  • Taxonomic Classification: Transitions between different viral/host lineages
  • Read Pair Orientation: Inconsistent paired-end read orientations

Classification Categories

  • Technical Artifacts: Assembly errors, typically split
  • PCR Chimeras: Amplification artifacts, typically split
  • Biological Recombination: Genuine recombination events, preserved
  • Provirus Integration: Virus-host integration sites, flagged

Confidence Scores

Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.